Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Being an old mainframer when only people with security clearances could use the "internet", I can remember the days when 4M of RAM was a "insanely powerful" machine. :D

Yup, the first machine I worked on was an IBM 360/195. RAM was a $1 million per megabyte. We've come a long way.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

To sum this all up, yes, REAL people use these top of the line computers for REAL jobs. :)
 
You must have really special softwares.

Not really. I spend most my time in XCode, and it will gladly use 24 cores if I had a 24 core machine. And XCode is $4.99 on the app store. :p

And yes, I could actually keep all 24 busy. :D

In a lot of industries, writing software that can use 24 cores is not actually hard. That was one of the sad things about FCP7. Writing video software that could use 24 logical cores is not hard.
 
There should only be one equally powered computer for everyone. And one equally spec'd car. Two bed-roomed houses for each family.

We all should make the same amount of money too.

Just imagine how great that would be. Because we at central command know best the needs of each and ever person.
:eek:


Honestly:
I think the OP is both outrageously ignorant... and also offensive.
 
there should only be one equally powered computer for everyone. And one equally spec'd car. Two bed-roomed houses for each family.

We all should make the same amount of money too.

Just imagine how great that would be. Because we at central command know best the needs of each and ever person.
:eek:


Honestly:
I think the op is both outrageously ignorant... And also offensive.

op = troll
 
There should only be one equally powered computer for everyone. And one equally spec'd car. Two bed-roomed houses for each family.

We all should make the same amount of money too.

Just imagine how great that would be. Because we at central command know best the needs of each and ever person.
:eek: .

You must be an Obama worshipper to even write this garbage.
 
I said that I don't intend to offend anybody in the first post. I'm sorry if I did, but I was just a little confused about how these powerhouses are used to their potential.

EDIT: And do they use some sort of liquid coolant system? Seems like those computers would need it. :D

use google or some other search engine and do some research. plenty of sites are out there for and about high end professional users of these machines, and the apple site will give you information about current cooling systems.
 
Absolutely, it's overpowered for a home user. But for those who have a need/use for it, it's practical to spend a bit more to save time--especially for the type of jobs where billable hours add up in a BIG hurry.

Hell, it was worth it to me for my job in high school to shell out the $$ for a dual G5--the cost over the single processor model paid for itself in a couple months.
 
People aren't any happier now than they were twenty years ago. In fact, it seems to be the opposite.

I'm just playing devils advocate here, and asking some questions that I think aren't asked enough.

Compare the level of video camera you got for $3,000 twenty years ago to what you get for that amount now. More power = higher quality in less time. HD video was unheard of in the consumer space not too long ago, and it is now commonplace.

If you seriously think video editors aren't happier with the tools they have now than what they had a long time ago...guess again.

Actual art and creative types love these machines to death.

Or to give you another example, Adobe claimed that 99% of users don't need more than 4 GB of RAM, in response to complaints that Photoshop CS4 wasn't 64-bit.

Within 10 minutes of completing my CS5 installation, I had used 6 GB of RAM in photoshop. All on relatively uncomplicated work on a somewhat simple photo merge. I'm not a professional photographer, but I do some pretty decent landscape work with massive panoramas. It eats RAM.

I've printed posters before where the people were larger than life size, and still high quality and high resolution. It's not all that hard to do, and it eats up system resources.

And the funniest part about all this? I'm not a professional media guy. My day job is Geologist. But the stuff I do merely on the side can really strain my 2008 2.8 Ghz machine that has only 10 GB of RAM. Actual pros with access to top notch gear can stress machines like you wouldn't believe. I have no trouble imagining what I'd do with more power.

And this isn't my day job.
 
Actual art and creative types love these machines to death.

Or to give you another example, Adobe claimed that 99% of users don't need more than 4 GB of RAM, in response to complaints that Photoshop CS4 wasn't 64-bit.

Within 10 minutes of completing my CS5 installation, I had used 6 GB of RAM in photoshop. All on relatively uncomplicated work on a somewhat simple photo merge. I'm not a professional photographer, but I do some pretty decent landscape work with massive panoramas. It eats RAM.

Pushing 20GB of RAM in PS everyday here. Adobe is definitely skewed on their sense of what we need -- Still waiting for Adobe to write Illustrator to 64bit to address more RAM.:mad:

@ OP, Need more power not less thx.
 
I think something MovieCutter didn't mention in an earlier rebuttal (I'm simply too lazy to grab the text at the moment) was the technologies being utilized for post-production in 2003 were proportionate to the workload and the capabilities of the software that was being used at the time. As software demands increased, so did the competency of the hardware.

MovieCutter is right on the money in his assertion that being able to work quicker equals faster client turnaround (although he put it more eloquently than I). As a freelancer, and one that has been lucky enough to not have a gap in my workload, this is extremely important.

Personally, I, at any given time, have four or five Photoshop documents open, some of them extremely complex with multiple layer comps, smart objects, shape layers and a hodgepodge of advanced effects; alongside that I'm running an instance of Illustrator, to reopen the vector files I've imported as smart objects into Photoshop, to make changes to those files quickly and efficiently. I often work in both PS and AI congruently, as anything that really should be done in vector, I do in vector; since I work with a lot of images I've created myself, this means I spend a lot of time between both applications.

I'm also a web developer, so I'm running a copy of Textmate, which usually has projects open from three major recurring clients whom employ me on retainer; I run an instance of Coda that I use from time to time as well, to do some of those niche things I don't, or can't, do with Textmate. Along with that, I try, as much as possible to write a most of my CSS within Compass/sass, which requires a background process to be running at all times, to monitor my workflow. I keep Cyberduck open for constant access to my FTP client and, generally speaking, I'm back and forth between running Drush commands in a Terminal visor -- as nearly a dozen of my current projects are running on Drupal -- and checking TweetDeck to stay in touch with my colleagues.

I also keep a VMWare install running at all times, so I can jump into my Windows 7 installation to check how my current project is rendering in IE-based browsers, since I still have not come to fully rely on Adobe's Browser Labs.

I also work as the technical director for a record label full time; I manage all of their websites and will edit video and create motion graphics for them when there is a need, which means I'm often adding After Effects and Premiere Pro to that mix as well.

I also need a running copy of iTunes open for a constant feed of Alice in Chains, Deftones, Tool and Sunny Day Real Estate -- and a few of the more well known contemporaries I don't like admitting listening to.

And for keeping the kids happy, a copy of PS3 media server, queuing up an endless supply of music and movies, as I use one of my MyBook Studio Edition II's as a media hub.

Have I mentioned I often do my sketching in Painter 12, my Ink work in Manga Studio, and render architectural designs in Sketchbook Pro?

There is some obvious exaggeration here, as my daily workflow is a little more organized and far less hectic. I think the message is obvious, and we've probably beaten the dead horse quite a bit: I don't want to be slowed down by my tools -- in the same way I wouldn't want to wear baseball gloves when trying to floss my teeth.
 
Last edited:
I think something MovieCutter didn't mention in an earlier rebuttal (I'm simply too lazy to grab the text at the moment) was the technologies being utilized for post-production in 2003 were proportionate to the workload and the capabilities of the software that was being used at the time. As software demands increased, so did the competency of the hardware.

The other issue is, what is fast enough?

If in 2003 you could render video in real time (which would have been a feat in 2003), you could still render faster. 2x real time? 4x real time? 8x real time? The faster the better.

And that's really the thing about the Mac Pro. Even if you could render 4k footage in real time, faster is still better.

There really isn't "fast enough for video editing." Because you can always do better. That's the silly thing about people saying we've reached some peak. What peak?

Even if we were still at SD, until you reach the point where your entire composition renders instantly, we're not at "fast enough." (And we are still a very long ways from that point.)
 
Ok, I just finished looking at the possible configurations for a Mac pro on the apple website. I just have to say this: WHO COULD POSSIBLY USE SO MUCH PROCESSING POWER?!? it's ridiculous!! I mean, if it's just the baseline model, that's reasonable, but the amount of "oomph" (I believe that's a technical term?) they offer to stuff in that thing is realistically useless!

I dont intend to offend anybody, but the whole idea seems rather silly/insane. Is there any realistic way to utilize such a machine?

maxed out Mac pro = 12 2.93GHz cores, 64GB RAM, 8TB total HD space, dual 1GB graphics cards. I'm surprised the thing doesn't include a liquid coolant system.

My point: it's realistically impossible to use such a machine to its potential, as far as I know.

A project I'm working on can keep the highest in Mac Pro working at 100% CPU usage for a month or longer. It also brought down a 96 GB high memory node on our cluster down because it ran out of memory.

It's realistic. It's actually rather trivial, for some applications.

And I don't think the OP is a troll. I can see configuring a machine like that, and being like "No way I'd need that kind of power." Hell, less than 5 years ago, I essentially viewed our university cluster as infinitely powerful.
 
Last edited:
Actually OP is correct. If you go to Google, Netflix, or any web hosting company's datacenters, the so-called 'server racks' are actually there to throw people off and impress the investors. All these companies' web services are actually running out of a single Mac Pro kept under the CEO's desk.

Apple makes tons of money this way, of course, because these companies pay Apple $$$ so that Apple doesn't activate the secret computer codes that cause Apple computers to fail as soon as AppleCare expires. It's all a big conspiracy, you see? Very hush-hush.
 
I think something MovieCutter didn't mention in an earlier rebuttal (I'm simply too lazy to grab the text at the moment) was the technologies being utilized for post-production in 2003 were proportionate to the workload and the capabilities of the software that was being used at the time. As software demands increased, so did the competency of the hardware.

MovieCutter is right on the money in his assertion that being able to work quicker equals faster client turnaround (although he put it more eloquently than I).

Thank you good sir. The common folk of these forums have no freaking clue what pros have to go through in order to turn around projects to make a living. I quote by the project, not by the time, mainly because I am very fast, and very good at what I do. So if I am able to turn around projects in an efficient and timely manner, I make a LOT more money. And the tool I need to do that is my Mac Pro, so the investment I make in the fastest machine possible is nothing but a great investment.

The other issue is, what is fast enough?

If in 2003 you could render video in real time (which would have been a feat in 2003), you could still render faster. 2x real time? 4x real time? 8x real time? The faster the better.

And that's really the thing about the Mac Pro. Even if you could render 4k footage in real time, faster is still better.

There really isn't "fast enough for video editing." Because you can always do better. That's the silly thing about people saying we've reached some peak. What peak?

Even if we were still at SD, until you reach the point where your entire composition renders instantly, we're not at "fast enough." (And we are still a very long ways from that point.)

My mother used to ask me "when will a computer be fast enough so you don't "waste" your money on a new one every 6 months." I looked her dead in the eye and said..."When I can render 99 levels of video with 99 filters for a 99 minute film in under 99 seconds....then it'll be fast enough" I was exaggerating of course, but you get my drift.

Actually OP is correct.

The OP doesn't know squat, or they wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. The OP is either completely ignorant and naive, or a troll...take your pick.
 
My mother used to ask me "when will a computer be fast enough so you don't "waste" your money on a new one every 6 months." I looked her dead in the eye and said..."When I can render 99 levels of video with 99 filters for a 99 minute film in under 99 seconds....then it'll be fast enough" I was exaggerating of course, but you get my drift.

But then you'll have a client asking for something done in 98 ;)
 
But then you'll have a client asking for something done in 98 ;)

I ********** hate clients sometimes!!!! :cool::p;)

I actually had a client ask me yesterday if I could remove shadows from a shot of a presentation she was giving in a hotel ballroom...I didn't shoot the thing, but I was still like "seriously?! What the hell!!!?" I told my production coordinator and she laughed her ass off. Glad I was good in company!
 
i need even more power. my 16 cores and16gb of ram isnt enough:cool:
cores.jpg
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.